@prefix vivo: . @prefix edm: . @prefix ns0: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix skos: . vivo:departmentOrSchool "Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies"@en ; edm:dataProvider "DSpace"@en ; ns0:degreeCampus "UBCV"@en ; dcterms:creator "Beausoleil, Angele"@en ; dcterms:issued "2012-09-27T18:40:31Z"@en, "2012-08-31"@en ; dcterms:description "The importance of innovation in corporate competitiveness and global economic growth has made it a central topic of research over the past decade with a growing recognition that design thinking, as the new approach to innovation, plays a critical role. Despite case studies of corporate enterprise success, little is known on how business incubators, the organizations who nurture and launch small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), undertake design thinking and innovative activities. This paper reviews available literature and examines the relationship between design thinking, innovation and business incubation and presents varying perspectives of design-led innovation in commercial for-profit incubators. The results of this multidisciplinary survey illustrate how the integration of design thinking and innovative approaches are redefining the next generation of business incubators and providing greater socio-economic value. It concludes with a discussion of gaps and weaknesses in the literature and some requirements for future research in this field. The purpose of this research is to broaden the understanding of the effects of design thinking and innovation in the context of business incubator and next generation business models."@en ; edm:aggregatedCHO "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/43280?expand=metadata"@en ; skos:note """Design  Thinking,  Innovation  and  Business  Incubators  –  August  2012   Design  Thinking,  Innovation  and  Business  Incubators:     A  Literature  Review       Prepared  by:   Angele  Beausoleil,  ISGP  MA  Student     Abstract:  The  importance  of  innovation  in  corporate  competitiveness  and  global  economic  growth  has   made  it  a  central  topic  of  research  over  the  past  decade  with  a  growing  recognition  that  design   thinking,  as  the  new  approach  to  innovation,  plays  a  critical  role.  Despite  case  studies  of  corporate   enterprise  success,  little  is  known  on  how  business  incubators,  the  organizations  who  nurture  and   launch  small  and  medium-­‐sized  enterprises  (SMEs),  undertake  design  thinking  and  innovative  activities.   This  paper  reviews  available  literature  and  examines  the  relationship  between  design  thinking,   innovation  and  business  incubation  and  presents  varying  perspectives  of  design-­‐led  innovation  in   commercial  for-­‐profit  incubators.  The  results  of  this  multidisciplinary  survey  illustrate  how  the   integration  of  design  thinking  and  innovative  approaches  are  redefining  the  next  generation  of  business   incubators  and  providing  greater  socio-­‐economic  value.  It  concludes  with  a  discussion  of  gaps  and   weaknesses  in  the  literature  and  some  requirements  for  future  research  in  this  field.  The  purpose  of  this   research  is  to  broaden  the  understanding  of  the  effects  of  design  thinking  and  innovation  in  the  context   of  business  incubator  and  next  generation  business  models.     Keywords:  Design  Thinking,  Business  Incubator,  Design-­‐led  Innovation,  Business  Incubation       Introduction:   Although  a  relatively  recent  concept,  there  is  a  growing  body  of  research  that  supports  building  design   thinking  capacity  and  understanding  within  corporations  (Brown,  2009;  Kelley,  2009)  and  small   medium  sized  enterprises  (SMEs)  (Kahli  et  al,  2010;  Martin,  2009).  The  adoption  of  design  thinking  by   global  organizations  such  as  Apple,  P&G,  Dyson,  Nintendo  and  Burberry  proves  innovation  through   good  design  is  good  for  business.  For  entrepreneurs  and  their  SMEs,  design  thinking  can  be  invaluable   tool  to  clearly  define  which  products  and  services  they  intend  to  offer,  where  they  are  positioned  in   the  marketplace,  and  what  their  unique  value  propositions  are  (van  Zyl,  2008).     Entrepreneurs  take  an  intangible  business  idea  and  make  it  concrete.  They  are  involved  in  a   synthesizing  process  that  includes  the  concurrent  creation  of  new  services  or  products  with  the   construction  of  their  business  (van  Zyl,  2008).  Business  incubation  is  a  dynamic  process  that  affords   entrepreneurs  to  develop  their  new  venture  and  is  provided  by  Business  Incubators  (BIs)  who  nurtures   the  entrepreneurs  and  their  start-­‐up  firms  by  helping  them  get  the  resources,  services,  and  assistance   they  need  or  want  (Lyons,  2000).  Business  incubation  is  considered  the  link  between  innovation  and   entrepreneurship  (Khalil  et  al,  2010)  and  is  also  related  to  design  thinking,  which  involves  the  design  of   products  and  services,  the  management  of  design  production  and  the  design  of  the  organization.  The   entrepreneur  may  have  an  idea,  but  without  design  thinking,  it  may  never  be  synthesized  (van  Zyl,   2008)  and  without  innovation,  it  may  never  by  successfully  commercialized  (Khalil  et  al,  2008).     This  paper  explores  the  connection  between  design  thinking,  innovation  and  business  incubation.  It   aims  to  broaden  the  understanding  of  the  effects  of  design  thinking  and  innovation  in  the  context  of   Design  Thinking,  Innovation  and  Business  Incubators  –  August  2012   commercial  business  incubation  models  and  systems.  This  multidisciplinary  review  is  presented  in  four   sections:  design  thinking,  innovation  and  business  incubation;  a  background  on  business  incubators  as   evolving  organizations  and  economic  development  tools;  design-­‐driven  innovation  as  illustrated  by   theoretical  and  practical  application  studies;  and  a  discussion  on  the  role  of  design-­‐thinking  in  the  next   generation  of  incubator  models.     1.  Design  Thinking,  Innovation  and  Business  Incubators     In  2005,  the  Hasso-­‐Plattner-­‐Institute  of  Design  at  Stanford  University  in  California  began  to  teach   design  thinking  to  engineering  students  with  a  conviction  that  engineers  and  scientists  could  learn  to   become  innovators.  Meinel  and  Leifer  (2010)  support  Plattner’s  vision,  and  believe great  innovators   and  leaders  need  to  be  great  design  thinkers.  Through  their  research  they  have  concluded  high  impact   teams  work  at  the  intersection  of  technology,  business,  and  human  values  and  through  collaborative   communities  breakthrough  ideas,  products  and  companies  are  created.  They  believe  design  thinking  is   a  catalyst  for  innovation  and  for  bringing  new  things  into  the  world  (Meinel,  Leifer  and  Plattner,  2011).     They  are  joined  by  a  growing  number  of  scholars  and  practitioners  who  support  a  direct  correlation   between  design  thinking  and  innovation.  Tim  Brown  (2009)  defines  design  thinking  “as  a  methodology   for  innovation  and  enablement”  and  “the  open-­‐minded,  no-­‐holds-­‐barred  approach  that  designers  bring   to  their  work,  rather  than  the  narrow,  technical  view  of  innovation  traditionally  taught  at  many   business  and  engineering  schools.  Thomas  Lockwood  (2010)  adds  “Design  thinking  is  primarily  an   innovation  process  that  involves  discovering  unmet  needs  and  opportunities  to  create  new  solutions”.   Roger  Martin  (2009)  through  case  study  research  provides  further  evidence  that  design  thinking  is  the   interplay  between  analytical  mastery  and  intuitive  originality,  and  that  the  firms  that  master  this   balancing  act  will  be  the  most  innovative  and  successful  for  years  to  come.”     As  it  relates  to  business  incubation,  design  thinking  is  defined  as  the  collection  of  methods  that  are   common  in  engineering,  ethnologic  and  anthropologic  research,  industrial  design  and  business   economics.  It  is  distinguished  by  the  integration  of  methods,  a  focus  on  a  human-­‐centered  innovation   process  and  the  formation  of  multidisciplinary  teams  (Açar  and  Rother,  2011).  It  is  also  linked  to   innovation,  defined  as  the  pursuit  of  an  individual’s  seed  idea,  nurturing  by  a  team  and  gradually   involving  an  entire  organization  (Tang,  1996).  Design  thinking  is  related  to  the  theory  of  innovation,   founded  on  Schumpeter’s  (1942)  “creative  destruction”  concept,  that  innovation  is  the  process  of   revolutionizing  the  economic  structure  from  within  a  firm  through  the  deliberate  destruction  of  an  old   one  and  explicit  creation  of  a  new  one  (Gero,  2011).     Studies  bridging  design  thinking  and  innovation  to  business  incubators  suggest  two  models  of   operation.  Some  business  incubators  operate  within  a  closed  innovation  model  where  they  generate   their  own  ideas,  and  then  develop,  build,  market,  distribute  and  support  them  on  their  own.  Others,   operate  an  open  innovation  model  (Chesbrough  et  al.  2006).  where  the  research  paradigm  assumes   the  new  ventures  can  and  should  use  external  ideas  as  well  as  internal  ideas,  and  explore  internal  and   external  paths  to  market,  as  the  firms  look  to  advance  their  technology,  product  or  service  (Kaivo-­‐oja,   2011).  Technology  acquisition  and  technology  exploitation  are  key  elements  of  open  innovation   thinking  (Lichtenthaler  2008).  Technology  exploitation  refers  to  purposeful  outflow  of  knowledge   Design  Thinking,  Innovation  and  Business  Incubators  –  August  2012   versus  technology  exploration,  which  refers  to  the  acquisition  new  knowledge  and  technologies  from   the  outside.  “Open”  is  considered  the  new  paradigm  (Chesbrough,  2003)  in  innovation,  which  supports   the  fact  that  valuable  ideas  can  come  even  from  inside  as  outside  the  company  or  corporation  (Kaivo-­‐ oja,  2011)     Studies  explicitly  connecting  design  thinking,  innovation  and  business  incubation  appear  absent  in  both   scholarly  and  industry  databases.  Green’s  (2007)  article  implicitly  suggests  a  correlation  between   design  thinking,  innovation  and  business  incubation  through  his  Innovation  Diffusion  Opportunity  (IDO)   model,  which  appears  to  as  an  alternative  label  for  design  thinking.  Green  (2007)  suggests  IDO  as  an   event  or  interaction  during  which  new  knowledge,  skills,  tools,  ideas,  and  other  forms  of  technology   are  presented  by  the  business  incubation  network  and  implemented/incorporated  into  the  business   practice  to  be  retained  for  future  consideration  or  to  be  converted  into  a  start-­‐up  company  (Green   2007).     Although  defined  for  this  paper,  the  term  design  thinking  appears  absent  from  the  business  vocabulary   of  most  incubator  managers,  entrepreneurs  and  SMEs.  Therefore,  this  literature  review  attempts  to   provide  the  first  dialogue  between  academia  and  industry  on  design  thinking,  as  the  process  of   innovation,  of  turning  new  ideas  into  practical  products,  environments  and  services  around  the   changing  needs  of  users  (Martin,  2009;  Kelley,  2009,  Meinel  et  al,  2010),  and  its  relationship  with   business  incubators.     2.  Background  on  Business  Incubators     Incubators  have  been  around  since  the  1950s,  but  the  Internet  spawned  a  new  breed  of  business   incubators  (BIs)  focused  on  web  technologies,  information  and  communication  technologies  (ICT)  and   services.  The  market  changes  from  the  past  20  yrs  have  revived  and  reshaped  the  concept  of   incubation,  leading  to  the  growth  of  private  incubators  as  profit-­‐oriented  institutions  who  provide   funding,  facilities,  expertise  and  networks.  Interest  in  private  for-­‐profit  incubators  continues  to   increase  stemming  from  the  importance  attached  to  high-­‐tech  companies  and  more  generally,  to  the   new  knowledge-­‐based  economy  (Bollingtoft  and  Ulhoi,  2005).     According  to  National  Business  Incubation  Association  (NBIA),  it  is  estimated  that  over  7,000  business   incubators  operate  worldwide.  In  North  America  there  is  approx.  1,400  incubators,  the  majority  being   technology-­‐focused  with  only  one  quarter  being  private  and  for-­‐profit  incubators.  The  business   incubator  (BI)  has  evolved  over  the  years  to  meet  a  variety  of  needs,  from  fostering  commercialization   of  university  technologies  to  increasing  employment  in  economically  distressed  communities  to  serving   as  an  investment  vehicle  (NBIA,  2012).     Business  Incubators  are  increasingly  heralded  as  critical  economic  development  tools  for  job  creation   (Hackett  et  al,  2004)  and  through  successful  operation,  commercialize  new  technologies  (products  and   services),  deliver  more  startups  with  fewer  business  failures  and  generate  regional  economic  impact   (Hackett  et  al,  2004).  In  addition  to  offering  financial  markets  a  pool  of  high-­‐growth  potential   investment  and  lending  prospects  at  reduced  risk,  incubators  can  also  offer  academic  institutions  a   vehicle  to  commercialize  research  and/or  assist  graduates  with  setting  new  business  ventures  and   Design  Thinking,  Innovation  and  Business  Incubators  –  August  2012   provide  corporations  access  to  innovative  ideas  to  strengthen  their  supply  chain,  delivery  mechanisms   or  operations  (Khahli  and  Olasfen,  2010).     The  debates  in  the  value  of  incubators  research  are  numerous  (Bollingtoft  et  al,  2005;  Chesbrough,   2002:2003;  Khali  et  al,  2010;  Marshall,  2010),  with  some  authors  (Hackett  et  al,  2004;  Khali  et  al,  2010;   NBIA,  2012)  agreeing  to  the  need  for  systems  and  programs  to  help  new  ventures  navigate  the   complex  business  climate,  and  others  (Peters  et  al,  2009)  suggesting  they  are  too  sheltered  and  are  a   flawed  model  because  they  take  the  initiative  away  from  the  start-­‐up  team.  At  the  same  time,  a  recent   and  growing  body  of  research  (Lockwood,  2010)  suggests  ventures  of  the  future  will  be  those  who  can   innovate  and  create  meaningful  value  for  their  shareholders  and  customers,  and  those  who  best  use   the  principles  and  methods  of  design  thinking.     BI  research  suggests  the  majority  are  technology-­‐oriented  and  are  built  from  a  linear  model  of   innovation  (Dunphy,  et  al,  1996)  where  the  idea  for  new  technologies  stem  from  scientific  research  at   local  university,  which  is  then  transferred  to  a  commercialization  firm  or  division,  either  internally  as  a   public  or  corporate  incubator  or  externally  to  a  private  incubator.  The  conventional  innovation  theory   is  based  on  the  idea  of  a  linear  progression  model  (Dunphy,  et  al,  1996),  from  research  to   development,  with  the  innovation  process  acting  as  a  funnel  (Gardien,  2006).  The  many  different  and   disparate  initial  ideas  are  gradually  whittled  down  –  either  inside  or  outside  (Chesbrough,  2003)  the   company  –  until  a  small  number  of  the  most  feasible  concepts  are  left.  These  are  then  developed  and   matched  with  the  profitable  business  case  model  (Gardien,  2006).     Private  or  for-­‐profit  incubators  are  commonly  segmented  into  Corporate  Business  Incubators  (CBIs)   and  Independent  Business  Incubators  (IBIs).  CPIs  are  owned  and  managed  by  large  companies  with  the   aim  of  supporting  the  emergence  of  new  independent  business  (aka  corporate  spin-­‐offs)  and  usually   originate  from  in-­‐house  research  project  spill-­‐overs.  IBIs  are  set  up  by  single  individuals  or  by  groups  of   individuals  who  help  entrepreneurs  create  and  grow  their  business  by  providing  investment  funding   and  access  to  resources  including  strategic  partners  networks.  A  subset  of  private  IBIs  are  described  as   networked  incubators  (Bollingtoft  et  al,  2005),  those  based  on  the  value  of  collaboration  and  social   capital  of  either  individual  and/or  collective  social  networks,  connections  and  structures  that  help  the   entrepreneur  access  the  knowledge  and  strategic  relationships  they  need  to  realize  their  vision   (Bollingtoft  et  al,  2005).     Recent  evidence-­‐based  research  shows  a  positive  relationship  between  CBI  model  success  and  design   thinking.  Brown,  Kelley,  Martin  et  al  have  demonstrated  the  success  of  P&G’s  Design  Thinking  and  Clay   Street  Project,  GE’s  Chief  Design  Officer  designation,  Phillips  Design  Research  Projects,  Intuit’s  Design   for  Delight  approach,  and  SAP’s  design  thinking  lab.  CBIs  are  modeled  to  provide  the  “intrapreneur”,  a   start-­‐up  environment  while  working  within  a  Fortune  50  company.  Design-­‐thinking  oriented  incubators   such  as  these  remove  people  from  their  day  jobs  and  out  of  their  comfort  zone  and  enables  they  end   up  thinking  about  entrepreneurial  solutions  that  might  not  have  ever  crossed  their  minds  before   (Brown,  Kelley,  Martin  et  al).  Unfortunately,  private  and  public  incubators  do  not  share  CBIs  success,   suggesting  the  lack  of  understanding  and  appreciation  for  design  thinking.  It  is  expected  that  upon   completion  of  an  incubator  program,  the  new  firm  has  developed  the  skills  to  grow,  create  jobs  and   survive.  Industry  research  (Jen,  2002;  Kyfinn  et  al,  2009;  Marshall,  2010)  shows  a  significant  percentage   Design  Thinking,  Innovation  and  Business  Incubators  –  August  2012   of  incubator  graduates  fail  to  survive,  attributing  the  failures  to  the  incubator’s  lack  of  providing  quality   services  and  low  competency  level  of  resources  (i.e.  advisors,  capital  and  valuable  networks.).  An   article  from  Taiwan  stated  the  Taiwanese  government  was  forced  to  revamp  their  incubators,  as  they   were  negatively  perceived  as  “landlords  instead  of  father  figures  to  start-­‐ups”  (Jen,  2002).     A  study  exploring  how  technology-­‐driven  startups  can  benefit  by  the  adoption  of  design  thinking  and   gain  a  strategic  competitive  advantage  (Açar  and  Rother,  2011),  supports  design  thinking  methods,   such  as  user  research  practice  results  in  more  a  desirable  product  with  a  reduced  need  for  marketing   efforts.  The  study  infers  that  design  thinking  introduces  more  objectivity  to  new  technology  design  and   limits  the  natural  tendency  for  a  firm  to  “over  engineer”(Açar  and  Rother,  2011).       Meinel  and  Leifer  (2010)  reminds  us  of  a  global  truth  that  applies  to  business  incubators:  the  fact  that   every  physical,  technological  or  digital  product  delivers  a  service  and  that  every  service  is  manifested   through  products;  and  that  without  an  insightful  enterprise  strategy,  it  matters  little  if  the  products  or   services  is  unable  to  find  its  market.  Based  on  this  truth,  they  provide  four  rules  of  design  thinking  for   business  incubation:  the  Human  rule  –  that  all  design  activity  is  ultimately  social  in  nature  and  satisfies   human  needs;  the  Ambiguity  rule  –  that  design  thinking  must  preserve  ambiguity  to  enable  chance   discoveries  while  embracing  failure;  the  Re-­‐design  rule  –  that  all  design  is  re-­‐design  in  that  we  take   from  the  past  what  we  need  for  the  future  (social  and  technological  experiences;  and  the  Tangibility   Rule  –  that  is  about  always  making  ideas  tangible  to  facilitate  communication  through  prototyping   activities  (Meinel  and  Leifer,  2010).     Business  incubators  have  a  critical  role  in  the  facilitation  and  creation  of  a  “new  venture”  ecosystem,   by  encouraging  risk-­‐oriented  entrepreneurs  to  bring  new  ideas  to  the  market  and  turn  the  potential  of   their  idea  and  ambition  into  real  social  and  economic  value  (Khalil  and  Olasfen,  2010).  Scholars  and   practitioners  (Brown,  2009;  Martin,  2009;  Lockwood,  2010)  suggest  the  ventures/firms  of  the  future   will  be  those  who  can  innovate  and  create  meaningful  value  for  their  shareholders  and  customers,   particularly  those  who  best  use  the  principles  and  methods  of  design  thinking.       3.  Design-­‐driven  innovation  and  business  incubation       Design-­‐driven  innovation  is  based  on  the  idea  that  each  product  holds  a  particular  meaning  for   consumers.  For  example,  Swatch  transformed  the  meaning  of  watches  as  time  instruments  into   fashion  accessories  while  the  Nindendo  Wii  redefined  the  meaning  of  playing  with  a  game  console  as  a   social  and  active  experience.  Innovative  companies  like  Swatch,  Nintendo  and  Apple  step  back  from   users  and  take  a  broader  perspective  (Verganti  2010).  They  explore  how  the  context  in  which  people   buy  things  is  changing  and  how  technologies,  products,  and  services  are  shaping  that  context,   highlighting  that  social-­‐cultural  observation  is  key.  Incubators  and  their  incubating  new  businesses  can   realize  successful  radical  innovations  of  meanings  by  practicing  the  art  of  listening,  interpreting,  and   addressing  (Verganti  2010).     Today,  most  business  incubators  continue  to  provide  logistical  and  financial  support  to  the   entrepreneur,  yet  lack  the  leadership  and  influence  of  design  thinkers  -­‐-­‐  those  able  to  look  at  the  big   picture  while  simultaneously  see  the  details.  Downton  (2003)  describes  the  design  thinker  as  one  who   Design  Thinking,  Innovation  and  Business  Incubators  –  August  2012   employs  knowledge  from  inside  and  outside  the  discipline  and  who  explicitly  reshapes  the  knowledge,   discards  parts,  augments  parts  and  juxtaposes  elements  on  the  way  to  proposing  a  new  design   (Downton,  2003).  Martin  (2009)  suggests  design-­‐thinkers  actively  look  for  new  data  points,  challenge   accepted  explanations  and  infer  possible  new  worlds,  yet  design  to  what  is  technologically  feasible  and   makes  business  sense.  Innovative  products  launched  without  this  awareness  are  research  projects  with   no  future  or  means  for  value  creation.     Practitioners  and  scholars  (Brown,  2009;  Dell'Era  et  al,  2010;  Martin,  2009;  Marshall,  2010;  Verganti,   2010)  agree  that  design  and  innovation-­‐led  businesses  focus  on  creative  ideation,  production,  and  the   application  of  science,  mathematics,  engineering  and  technology  expertise  to  serve  more  tangible  and   pragmatic  human  needs.  These  innovative  firms  actively  practice  imaginative,  improvisational,  and   creative  design;  igniting,  seeding,  “hatching,”  accelerating,  and  scaling  promising  prototypes  and   innovations  into  products,  services,  processes,  and  systems.  The  opportunity  for  the  business  incubator   is  to  serve  as  a  magnet,  disruption  amplifier,  and  innovation  and  design  accelerator,  and  focus  on   developing  innovation  and  design-­‐based  thinking  (Marshall,  2010).     The  design-­‐push  or  design-­‐driven  approach  is  a  new  theory  of  innovation  that  results  from  merging  the   novelty  of  message  with  market-­‐pull  and  technology-­‐push  approaches.  The  market-­‐pull  approach  is   focused  on  consumer  needs  as  the  main  source  of  innovation.  The  technology-­‐push  approach  relies  on   research  and  development  activities  to  develop  new  technologies  and  create  new  products.  The   design-­‐push  or  design-­‐driven  approach  when  of  novelty  of  message  and  design  is  combined  with   market-­‐pull  and  technology-­‐push  activities  (Verganti,  2010).     A  comprehensive  design-­‐driven  innovation  model  suggests  having  characteristics  of  integration,   multidisciplinary,  and  permeable  (Acklin,  2010).  Integration  describes  the  intertwining  of  strategy   building,  innovation,  and  design  management,  allowing  for  the  creation  of  new  and  meaningful   products,  services,  and  experiences.  Multidisciplinary,  central  to  design  thinking,  involves  engaging   members  from  a  variety  of  management  functions,  from  marketing,  engineering,  sales,   communication,  to  design,  etc.  Permeable  refers  to  being  both  inner  and  outer-­‐oriented.  For  example,   combining  R&D  activities  with  methods  of  open  innovation  by  inviting  consumers  and  users  to  co-­‐ create  new  offerings  (Acklin,  2010).       The  link  between  business  incubation,  design  thinking  and  innovation  becomes  clearer  when  discussing   entrepreneurs  and  design  thinkers  in  the  innovation  process.  As  entrepreneurs  take  an  intangible   business  idea  and  make  it  concrete  through  a  synthesizing  process  facilitated  by  business  incubators   (van  Zyl,  2008),  design  thinkers  move  between  the  abstract  and  concrete,  between  analysis  and   synthesis  to  execute  that  process.  Assembling  the  right  mix  of  people  on  the  team  to  execute  the   process  and  providing  a  leader  for  that  team  with  leadership  skills,  who  understands  the  process  and   who  can  integrate  the  diverse  ways  of  thinking  (Beckman  and  Barry,  2007)  thus  falls  on  the  business   incubator.       An  example  of  a  design-­‐driven  incubator  is  the  Design  Council’s  Designing  Demand  program.  Launched   in  the  UK  in  2004,  it  comprises  three  distinct  incubator  programs:  Generate,  for  SMEs  with  growth   potential;  Innovate,  for  hi-­‐tech  ventures  to  overcome  their  business,  technology  and  market  challenges   Design  Thinking,  Innovation  and  Business  Incubators  –  August  2012   through  multiple  design  projects;  and  Immerse,  a  service  for  larger  companies  to  tackle  strategic   challenges  through  multiple  design  projects.  Their  efforts  to  date  is  that  1,500  businesses  now  believe   design  can  make  them  more  competitive,  the  Generate  service  has  yielded  over  millions  in  new  sales,   and  that  the  Immerse  service  influenced  90%  of  businesses  to  lead  design  projects  which  in  turn   proved  critical  to  their  success  with  sales  outperforming  by  14  per  cent.  It  was  concluded  that  for  every   £1  invested  in  design,  it  returned  £50  (Ward,  Runcie  and  Morris,  2009).  Their  successful  formula  is   focused  in  five  areas  where  design  is  proven  to  add  value  to  new  and  existing  businesses.  The  five   areas  are:  vision  and  strategy,  brand  and  identity,  product  and  service,  user  experience  and  innovative   culture.  The  Designing  Demand  program  enables  “design  associates”  to  structure  their  influence  across   sectors  and  companies  and  with  the  senior  managers  of  each  business  to  map  out  opportunities  for   design-­‐led  improvements  and  innovations.  The  program,  supported  by  the  Design  Council’s  extensive   body  of  evidence,  embraces  and  applies  design  thinking  to  new  and  existing  companies  to  redefine  the   business  strategy,  reorganize  their  product  range,  reduce  costs,  open  up  new  markets,  and  experience   innovation  through  peer-­‐based  learning  (Ward,  Runcie  and  Morris,  2009).       The  UK  example  (Ward  et  al,  2009)  provides  evidence  that  business  incubators  that  integrate  design   thinking  are  well  positioned  to  nurture  invention  into  successful  innovations.  As  incubators  evolve  into   innovative  firms,  they  will  step  back  from  users  and  take  a  broader  perspective.  They  will  explore  how   the  context  in  which  people  buy  things  is  changing  and  how  technologies,  products,  and  services  are   shaping  that  context,  and  embrace  “social-­‐cultural  observation”(Verganti,  2010).  Lockwood  (2010)   suggests  by  embracing  the  process  of  design-­‐led  innovation,  new  management  processes  and  styles   can  be  explored  within  adaptive,  dynamic  systems  that  ultimately  generate  innovative  strategies,   products  and  services.        4.    The  next  generation  of  incubators     In  the  21st  century,  business  incubators  and  their  entrepreneurs  face  a  world  of  unprecedented   connectivity,  undisputed  global  interdependence,  and  the  emerging  realization  that  our  scientific,   economic,  sociopolitical,  and  environmental  futures  are  inextricably  linked  -­‐-­‐  causing  us  to  re-­‐evaluate   and  redesign  business  models,  policies  and  strategies  (Brown,  2009).  The  most  current   multidisciplinary  research  suggests  a  few  business  incubators  have  evolved  -­‐-­‐  redefining  themselves   with  new  models,  new  thinking  and  new  innovation  approaches.  The  examples  that  follow  offer   observations  into  the  next  generation  of  business  incubators,  those  building  strong  links  between   design  thinking  and  innovation.       The  innovation  and  incubation  hub  in  Finland’s  Otaniemi  forest  is  regarded  as  one  model  to  follow   (Himanen  et  al,  2011).  Situated  on  the  peninsula  at  the  very  tip  of  Helsinki’s  metropolis,  the  former   farmland  is  now  a  globally  acclaimed  creative  hub  that  actively  innovates  in  three  different  sectors:  IT,   energy,  and  biotechnology.  Helsinki,  awarded  the  2012  World  Design  Capital,  has  produced  IT  success   stories  as  Nokia,  Rovio,  and  Linux,  and  is  currently  leading  alternative  energy  research  on  wood  as  the   new  oil  in  biotechnology  and  energy  sectors.  Companies  work  in  close  contact  with  Finland’s  leading   universities  to  generate  technological,  economic,  and  design  innovations  needed  to  compete  globally   under  the  motto  “where  science  and  the  arts  meet  technology  and  business.”  Their  recipe  is  based  on   methodological  sciences  (from  computational  modeling  to  the  methods  behind  art  and  creativity);   Design  Thinking,  Innovation  and  Business  Incubators  –  August  2012   media  (information  and  communication  technology  and  expression);  materials  (from  nanotechnology   to  materials  for  art  and  design);  and  modeling,  which  includes  all  forms  of  design.  The  physical  and   philosophical  elements  of  their  model  brings  professionals  and  producer-­‐managers  (from  risk   investment  to  marketing)  into  a  culture  of  creativity—inspiring  people  to  realize  their  full  potential.   Finland’s  incubation  model  is  unique  as  it  combines  innovation-­‐based  competitiveness  with  social   inclusion.  Unlike  the  Silicon  Valley  incubator-­‐inspired  model  of  the  90s  where  new  millionaires  were   produced  at  a  rapid  pace,  while  a  fifth  of  the  population  lives  below  the  poverty  line,  Finland’s  model   affords  varying  dynamic  economic  models  for  innovation  through  social  inclusion  strategies.  This   virtuous  circle  generates  success  in  the  innovation  economy  allowing  for  continued  public  investments   in  education  and  health  care,  which  in  turn  produces  new  highly  educated  people  to  continue  the   economic  success  (Himanen  et  al,  2011).     The  new  incubator  models  are  integrating  creativity.  Research  from  BarcelonActiva,  a  25-­‐year  business   incubating  veteran  that  is  part  government-­‐  part  private-­‐funded  business  incubator  presents  evidence   of  high  survival  rate  among  its  graduated  tenants.  Rooted  in  a  design-­‐oriented  culture,  it  offers  services   to  the  creative  industries,  information  technology  and  high  tech  sectors,  and  to  both  Spanish  and   international  business  communities.  Their  facilities  comprise  an  entrepreneurship  resource  centre,   technology  park,  business  incubator  lab  and  venture  transformation  space.  The  incubator  has  a  “walk   in”  policy  when  it  comes  to  their  selection  process,  thus  any  person  with  a  business  idea  can  go   through  the  process,  but  there  is  a  waiting  list.  Their  incubation  period  is  three  years.  They  have   readjusted  their  service-­‐offering,  facilities  and  management  styles  to  best  fit  market  needs,  which  may   be  indicators  of  their  longevity  and  success  (Moscovis  and  Serup,  2012).       Enterpreneur-­‐tenants  and  managers  in  creative  industries  incubators  tend  to  network,  collaborate,   share,  and  foster  communication  amongst  the  participants  and  community  inside  and  outside  the   incubator.  They  embrace  entrepreneurial  risk  and  have  managers  who  are  simultaneously  open  and   exclusive.  A  successful,  design-­‐led  for-­‐profit  business  incubator  is  Denmark’s  MG50.  Design  and   collaboration  played  an  important  role  in  the  creation  and  construction  of  Danish  incubator  MG50  as  a   top  performing  “networked  BI”.  MG50  does  not  lend  initial  capital  nor  provide  professional  business   services  to  their  paying  tenants,  instead  they  provide  physical  structure  and  enable  social  interaction   through  a  co-­‐operative  business  model.  The  construction  design  and  management  style  of  MG50  was   very  important  in  creating  trusts  between  the  tenants  and  in  giving  tenants  the  entrepreneurial  drive   they  need  to  succeed  (Bollingtoft  and  Ulhoi,  2005).     Creative  industries  incubators  operate  differently  from  most  high-­‐tech  incubators,  which  are   characterized  as  formal,  prescriptive  and  exclusive  access  to  persons  of  value  (e.g.  Venture  capitalists,   industry  veterans)  in  an  effort  to  protect  their  idea,  but  research  suggests  they  could  benefit  by  more   collective  and  collaborative  workspaces  (Moscovis  and  Serup,  2012).  Studies  indicate  that  creative   entrepreneurs  and  creative  business  incubators  put  value  into  the  space  around  them,  as  they  do  with   clothes  and  other  aesthetics  and  clustering  in  cultural  and  creative  industries  as  New  York,  Berlin  and   London  (Moscovis  et  al,  2012).  Supporting  research  suggests  adopting  a  balance  between  the  ad  hoc   nature  of  the  creative  process  and  industry  with  the  rigour  of  design  and  engineering  may  be   appropriate  to  adopt  for  the  next  generation  of  business  incubators  (Moscovis  and  Serup,  2012).  Marty   Neumeler  observes  in  the  Designful  Company  (2009)  that  creativity  in  its  various  forms  has  become  the   Design  Thinking,  Innovation  and  Business  Incubators  –  August  2012   number  one  engine  of  economic  growth.  Connecting  interdisciplinary  studies,  it  appears  the  new   incubators  may  in  fact  be  borrowing  from  the  past,  inspired  by  Andy  Warhol’s  Factory  or  Tony  Wilson’s   Haçienda  and  Factory  Records.  Warhol’s  Factory  is  a  great  example  of  a  successful  innovation   incubator.  He  created  an  innovation  climate  through  a  physical  and  psychological  environment  where   people  would  be  inspired  to  think  great  ideas  and  then  convert  them  to  finished  product.  He   understood  the  collective  nature  of  creativity,  where  fashion,  art,  film,  music  and  design  could   intersect,  be  shared  and  also  resourced.  Warhol  generated  real  economic  value  to  those  who   participated  in  it,  experienced  it  from  a  Factory  event  or  consumed  its  products  (Currid,  2007).       The  new  incubators  are  learning  from  design-­‐led  companies.  Evidence-­‐based  research  from  Dow  and   Klemmer  (2010)  showed  that  designers  in  the  iteration  condition,  i.e.  with  multiple  rounds  of   prototyping,  outperformed  those  who  only  prototyped  once.  Prior  experience  with  iteration  proves  to   be  a  positive  performance  indicator  as  designers  tend  to  discover  more  flaws  and  constraints  and  try   new  concepts.  This  is  valuable  data  for  design  companies  which  always  operate  under  tight  time   constraints  in  the  race  for  early  market  entry  with  innovative  products.  (Dow  and  Klemmer,  2010)     Designing  the  next  generation  of  business  incubators  will  also  take  agility.  This  school  of  thought  is  well   supported  by  practitioners  of  Eric  Ries  (2010)  ’s  best  selling  book  “The  Lean  Start-­‐up”  and  reflects  Sir   Francis  Bacon’s  quote  "he  that  will  not  apply  new  remedies  must  expect  new  evils,  for  time  is  the   greatest  innovator”.  Agility  is  considered  an  emerging  concept  that  happens  when  an  organization  has   the  right  mindset,  the  right  skills  and  the  ability  to  multiply  those  skills  through  collaboration   (Neumeier,  2008).  To  count  agility  as  a  core  competence,  it  must  be  embedded  into  the  culture,   encourage  an  appetite  for  radical  ideas  and  embrace  a  constant  state  of  inventiveness.  Neumeier   (2008)  suggests  that  to  organize  for  agility,  a  company  needs  to  develop  a  “designful  mind”,  the  ability   to  invent  the  widest  range  of  solutions  for  the  wicked  problems  now  facing  your  company,  your   industry,  your  world.  (Neumeier,  2008).       The  literature  reviewed  in  this  paper  presents  evidence  that  a  successful  methodology  for  innovation  is   emerging.  It  integrates  human,  business,  and  technological  factors  in  problem  forming,  solving  and   design  and  is  referred  to  as  “Design  Thinking.”  Its  human-­‐centric  methodology  integrates  expertise   from  design,  social  sciences,  engineering,  and  business.  It  blends  an  end-­‐user  focus  with   multidisciplinary  collaboration  and  iterative  improvement  to  produce  innovative  products,  systems,   and  services.  Through  iterative  experimentation,  Luebbe  and  Weske  (2011)  used  design  thinking   factors  such  as  physical  elements  (plastic  building  blocks  as  tangible  prototypes),  methodological   guidance,  and  intensive  end-­‐user/participant  involvement  to  illustrate  the  positive  results  and   relevance  for  successful  approach  and  application  in  real-­‐world  companies  (Meinel,  Leifer  and  Plattner,   2011).  Evolving  R&D  models  to  integrate  design  thinking  methods  may  also  improve  BI  success.  A   Business  Week  examined  if  there  was  a  way  for  investors  to  spot  early  innovation  opportunities  that   had  a  higher  chance  of  success.  And  the  point  made  was:  “There  is  no  simple  correlation  between   increased  research  and  development  spending  and  higher  stock  prices.  In  fact,  stepped-­‐up  research  &   development  often  depresses  near-­‐term  earnings  because  those  costs  must  be  expensed  now  while   the  payoff  of  new  innovative  products  could  be  years  away.  Besides,  much  research  &  development   spending  produces  nothing  that  customers  want  (Kyfinn  and  Gardien,  2009).       Design  Thinking,  Innovation  and  Business  Incubators  –  August  2012   If  incubators  were  to  focus  is  on  imaginative,  improvisational,  and  creative  design;  igniting,  seeding,   “hatching,”  accelerating,  and  scaling  promising  prototypes  and  innovations  in  products,  services,   processes,  and  systems,  new  ideas  and  useful  valuable  solutions  will  result.  Marshall  (2010)  suggests   the  incubator  should  serve  as  a  magnet,  disruption  amplifier,  and  innovation  and  design  accelerator  –   thus,  focus  on  developing  innovation  through  design-­‐based  thinking.     5.  Conclusion:     The  purpose  of  this  paper  is  to  broaden  the  understanding  of  the  effects  of  design  thinking  and   innovation  within  business  incubators.  It  suggests  incubators  are  well  positioned  to  provide  the   required  habitat  and  innovation  ecosystem  that  invites  experimentation,  celebrates  failure,  rewards   invention  and  irreverence,  and  encourages  the  passionate  pursuit  of  invention  turned  new  venture.  It   argues  that  design  thinking  plays  a  critical  role  in  the  innovation  process  where  new  management   processes  and  styles  can  be  explored  within  a  adaptive,  dynamic  systems  to  generate  innovative   strategies,  products  and  services.       Although  design  thinking  is  well  positioned  to  nurture  invention  into  successful  innovations,  and  has  an   important  role  within  business  incubators,  knowledge  and  adoption  of  design  thinking  methods   remains  low  for  most  business  incubator  managers,  entrepreneurs  and  SMEs.     The  literature  suggests  the  next  generation  of  business  incubators  are  integrating  design  thinking,   creativity,  innovation  and  agility,  and  infers  the  need  for  new  incubator  leadership,  a  new  breed  of   management  who  can  lead  and  grow  tomorrow’s  entrepreneurs  and  their  ventures.  The  new  manager   will  need  to  be  globally  networked,  agile,  intuitive,  risk  and  novelty  seeking,  creative,  collaborative,   failure  resilient,  analytical,  playful,  and  problem  focused  -­‐-­‐  aka  a  design  thinker.       An  area  for  future  research  will  be  to  investigate  both  the  incubator  managers  and  entrepreneurs  and   their  knowledge  and  application  of  design  thinking  as  an  approach  to  innovation  and  successful  start-­‐ up  development.  A  closer  examination  of  the  passionate  champion  -­‐-­‐  genius  and  visionary  -­‐-­‐  behind  the   idea  and  new  venture  and  their  commitment  to  the  collaborative  principles  of  design  thinking  is   warranted.  The  research  question  may  be  “What  is  the  role  of  design  thinkers  in  the  business   incubation  process  and  are  design  thinkers  the  entrepreneurs  of  the  future?”         Design  Thinking,  Innovation  and  Business  Incubators  –  August  2012   5.  References     Amabile,  T.M  and  Gryskiewicz,  N.D.  (1989).  The  creative  environment  scales:  work  environment  inventory.   Creativity  Research  Journal,  2,  231-­‐253.     Açar,  A.E.  and  Rother,  D.  S.  (2011).  Design  Thinking  in  Engineering  Education  and  its  Adoption  in  Technology-­‐ driven  Start-­‐ups.  Advances  in  Sustainable  Manufacturing,  Part  2,  57-­‐62     Acklin,  C.  (2010).  Design-­‐Driven  Innovation  Process  Model.  Design  Management  Journal,  5(1),  50–60.     Bollingtoft,  A.  and  Ulhoi,  J.P.  (2005).  The  networked  business  incubator—leveraging  entrepreneurial  agency?   Journal  of  Business  Venturing.  20(2).   http://www.cetim.org/Projects%5CArticles/24_The%20Networked%20incubator%20(2).pdf     Beckman,  S.L.  and  Barry,  M.  (2007)  Innovation  as  a  Learning  Process:  Embedding  Design  Thinking.  California   Management  Review  Vol  50.  No.  1     Bejarano,  T.  (2012).  Brazil:  Measuring  the  Constructs  of  the  Business  Incubation  Process       Dissertation/Thesis.  Arizona  State  University  1509207     Brown,  T.  (2008).  Design  Thinking  and  How  to  make  Design  Thinking  Part  of  the  Innovation  Drill.  Harvard   Business  Review.     Bruno,  S.K.  (2011).  Business  Incubators  and  Sustainable  Innovation.  Annals  of  the  University  of  Oradea  :   Economic  Science,  ISSN  1222-­‐569X,  07/2011,  1(1),  779  –  785     Bjornard,  E.T.  (2005).    Quote  from  an  article  Method,  Not  Madness  -­‐  Innovation  may  look     casual.  But  behind  every  creative  leap,  there’s  a  real  process  at  work,  by  Samar  Farah,  CMO  Magazine,     www.cmomagazine.com     Chen,  C.H.  (2012).  Factors  Influencing  creativity  in  Business  Innovation:  From  the  perspective  of   Csikszentmihaly’s  Creativity  System.  Dahan  Institute  of  Technology  (TAIWAN)     Chesbrough,  H.  and  Rosenbloom,  R.S.  (2002).  The  role  of  business  model  in  capturing  value  from  innovation.   Evidence  from  Xerox  Corporation´s  technology.  Industrial  and  Corporate  Change  11(3),  529-­‐555.     Chesbrough,  H.  (2003).  Open  Innovation:  The  New  Imperative  for  Creating  and  Profiting  from  Technology.   Boston:  Harvard  Business  School  Press.     Chesbrough,    H.,  Vanhaverbeke,  W.  and  West,  J  (2006).  Open  Innovation:  Researching  a  New     Paradigm.  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press.       Currid,  E.  (2007).  The  Warhol  Economy.  Princeton  University  Press.     Dell'Era,  C.,  Marchesi  A.  and  Verganti,R.  (2010).  Mastering  technologies  in  design-­‐driven  innovation:  how  two   Italian  companies  made  design  a  central  part  of  their  innovation  process.  Research-­‐Technology  Management,   53(2),  12     Design  Thinking,  Innovation  and  Business  Incubators  –  August  2012   Design  Council  (2011),  Design  for  Innovation  Report.  Facts,  figures  and  practical  plans  for  growth.     http://www.scribd.com/doc/78644248/Design-­‐For-­‐Innovation     Dunphy,  S.M.,  Herbig,  P.R.  and  Howes,  M.E.  (1996).  The  Innovation  Funnel.  Technological  Forecasting  and  Social   Change,  53(3),  279-­‐292     Dow,  S.  and  Klemmer,S.  (2010).  Chapter  7.  Design  Thinking:  Understand-­‐Improve-­‐Apply.  (Understanding   Innovation).  Springer  Publishers.     Downton  (2003)  Design  Research,  Melbourne,  RMIT  Publishing.     Dyson,  J.  (2010)  The  Design  Process:  Designing  the  Dyson  Airblade.  James  Dyson  Foundation   http://media.dyson.com/downloads/JDF/Poster_2_How.pdf     Edquist,  C  2005.  Systems  of  innovation:  Perspectives  and  challenges,  in  J  Fagerberg  et  al  (eds),  The  Oxford  Book   of  Innovation,  Oxford  University  Press,  pp.  181-­‐208.     Fang,  S.,  Tsai,  F.  and  Lin,  J.L.  (2010).  Leveraging  tenant-­‐incubator  social  capital  for  organizational  learning  and   performance  in  incubation  programme.  International  Small  Business  Journal,  28(1),  90–113     Gardien,  P.  (2006).  Breathing  life  into  delicate  ideas.  Developing  a  network  of  options  to  increase  the  chance     of  innovation  success.  Koninklijke  Philips  Electronics  N.V.   http://www.newscenter.philips.com/pwc_nc/main/design/resources/pdf/Breathing_life_into_delicate_ideas.pdf     Gero,  J.S.  (2011).  Innovation  Policy  and  Design  Thinking.  Krasnow  Institute  for  Advanced  Study,  Fairfax,  USA     Green,  G.  M.  (2007).  Value  Creation  in  Business  Incubation  Networks:  The  Impact  of  Innovation  Diffusion  on   Intellectual  Capital  Development  in  Start-­‐up  Companies.     Grimaldi,  R.  and  Grandi,  A.  (2005).  Business  incubators  and  new  venture  creation:  An  assessment  of  incubating   models.  Technovation  25,  111–121     Gstaunthaler,  T.(2010).  The  business  of  business  incubators:  An  institutional  analysis  -­‐  evidence  from  Lithuania,   Baltic  Journal  of  Management,  5(3),  397-­‐421     Hackett,  S.  M.  and  Dilts,  D.M.  (2007).  Inside  the  black  box  of  business  incubation:  Study  B—scale  assessment,   model  refinement,  and  incubation  outcomes.  Springer  Science+Business  Media,  LLC       Himanen,  P.,  Au,  A.  and  Margulies,  P.  (2011).  The  New  Incubators.  World  Policy  Journal  September,  28(3),  22-­‐34       Jen,  L.C.  (2002).  Incubatees  pour  out  concerns  and  hope.  New  Straits  Times  (Malaysia)     Kaivo-­‐oja,  J.  (2011).  Future  of  innovation  systems  and  systemic  innovation  systems:  toward  better  innovation   quality  with  new  innovation  management  tools.  Finland  Futures  Research  Centre.   http://www.ffrc.utu.fi/julkaisut/e-­‐julkaisuja/eTutu_2011_8.pdf     Katz,  B.  (2012).  From  Design  to  Design  Thinking.  Manufacturing  Culture  in  Silicon  Valley.  Boom:  A  Journal  of   California.  2(1),  72-­‐74   Design  Thinking,  Innovation  and  Business  Incubators  –  August  2012     Khalil,  M.A.  and  Olafsen,  E.  (2010).  Enabling  Innovative  Entrepreneurship  through  Business  Incubation.  World   Bank  Group.   http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/Resources/Chapt erKhalil_Olafsen.pdf     Kyffin,  S.  and  Gardien,  P.  (2009).  Navigating  the  Innovation  Matrix:  An  Approach  to  Design-­‐led  Innovation.   International  Journal  of  Design,  3(1)     Light,  E.  (2003).  The  chicken  and  the  egg:  four  incubatees  talk  about  their  businesses.  NZ  Business,  22     Lockwood,  T.  E.  (2010).  Design  Thinking:  Integrating  Innovation,  Customer  Experience,  and  Brand  Value.  vii-­‐xvii   Allworth  Press.       Lyons,  T.S.,  (2000).  Building  Social  Capital  for  Sustainable  Enterprise  Development  in  Country  Towns  and   Regions:  Successful  Practices  from  the  United  States.  Paper  presented  at  the  First  National  Conference  on  the   Future  of  Australia's  Country  Towns,  LaTrobe  University,  Center  for  Sustainable  Regional  Communities,  Australia.   June  29–30.     Marshall,  S.  P.  (2010).  Re-­‐Imagining  Specialized  STEM  Academies:  Igniting  and  Nurturing  Decidedly  Different   Minds,  by  Design.  Roeper  Review,  32,  48–60,  The  Roeper  Institute     Martin.  R  (2009).  The  Design  of  Business:  why  design  thinking  is  the  new  competitive  advantage.  Chapter  1:  The   Knowledge  Funnel:  How  Discovery  Takes  Shape,  1-­‐31,  Harvard  Business  Press.     Mazurkewish,  K.  (2010).  The  innovation  game;  Incubators  can  lead  startups  to  market.  Star-­‐Phoenix   Saskatoon,  Saskatchewan,  C.6.     M’Chirgui,  Z.  (2012).  Assessing  the  Performance  of  Business  Incubators:  Recent  France  Evidence  Business  and   Management  Research  Journal,  1(1)       Meinel,  C.,  Plattner,  H.  and  Leifer,  L.  (2011).  Design  Thinking:  Understand-­‐-­‐Improve  –  Apply.  Understanding   Innovation.  Springer.     Morris,  L.  (2009).  The  Innovation  Infrastructure.  International  Journal  of  Innovation  Science,  1(1),  41-­‐49     Moscovis,  S.  and  Serup,  S.  (2012).  The  cultural  business  incubator.  Dissertation/Thesis.  Copenhagen  Business   School.     National  Business  Incubation  Association  (NBIA)    (2006).  http://www.nbia.org/       Neumeir,  M.  (2008).  The  Designful  Company.  Design  Management  Review  19(2),  10-­‐15,  84-­‐85.     Peters,  L.  and  Sundararajan,  M.  (2004).  The  role  of  Incubators  in  the  Entrepreneurial  Process.  Journal  of   Technology  Transfer,  29(1),  83     Phillips,  J.  (2009).  Defining  Your  Innovation  Model:  10  Facets  of  Innovation.  International  Journal  of  Innovation   Science,  1(1),  41-­‐49   Design  Thinking,  Innovation  and  Business  Incubators  –  August  2012     Pollard,  D.  (2006).  Innovation  and  Technology  Transfer  Intermediaries:  A  Systemic  International  Study,  in   Michael  M.  Beyerlein,  Susan  T.  Beyerlein,  Frances  A.  Kennedy  (ed.)  Innovation  through  Collaboration  (Advances   in  Interdisciplinary  Studies  of  Work  Teams,  (12),  137-­‐174     Schumpeter,  JA  1942.  Capitalism,  Socialism  and  Democracy,  Harper.       Tang,  H.K.  (1996).  An  integrative  model  of  innovation  in  organizations.  Technovation  18(5),  297-­‐309.     Thom,  M.  (2011).  Business  Incubation  -­‐  How  to  Manage  the  Know-­‐how  Transfer.  Published  Thesis,  GRIN  Verlag     Van  Geenhuizen,  M.  and  Soetanto,  D.  (2009).  Growth  of  Technology  Incubators:  An  Evolutionary  Perspective.   Technological  Innovation  Across  Nations,  Part  2,  141-­‐158     Verganti,  R.  (2009).  Design  Driven  Innovation.  Introduction,  1-­‐116     Ward,  A.,  Runcie,  E.  and  Morris,  L.  (2009).  Embedding  innovation:  design  thinking  for  small  enterprises.  The   Journal  of  Business  Strategy,    30(2/3),  78     -­‐-­‐  """@en ; edm:hasType "Article"@en ; edm:isShownAt "10.14288/1.0075724"@en ; dcterms:language "eng"@en ; ns0:peerReviewStatus "Unreviewed"@en ; edm:provider "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en ; dcterms:rights "Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported"@en ; ns0:rightsURI "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"@en ; ns0:scholarLevel "Graduate"@en ; dcterms:isPartOf "University of British Columbia. INDS 530B"@en ; dcterms:subject "Design thinking"@en, "Business incubator"@en, "Design-led innovation"@en ; dcterms:title "Design Thinking, Innovation and Business Incubators: A Literature Review"@en ; dcterms:type "Text"@en ; ns0:identifierURI "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/43280"@en .